Posted: Sep 28, 2015 2:42 am
by igorfrankensteen
Oeditor wrote:
igorfrankensteen wrote: which suggests that none of this fussing is applicable. According to the above link, the age of the parchment is still within the expected time that the Koran was said to have been written, and isn't old enough to be sure that it IS older than a lot of other very old copies in existing collections.
The problem for the Muslim tradition is that the date range extends from before Mohammed began preaching the content of the Koran and stops before the time whan it was supposedly immutably codified and all preceding copies destroyed. If the younger date is correct, it's a blow to the tradition. If the older date is correct, it's a blow to Islam.

The only real "threat" would be to the possibility that NOT all previous copies were destroyed. And if this text fails to differ from the "immutably codified" version, then there's nothing special about this at all, save the fun of it being really old. And even with that, if the middle date is correct, there's still no problem.

One thing IS certain, and that is that the headline is more for effect than anything else. Almost entirely misleading.